Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now
Chad Perrin
perrin at apotheon.com
Sat Jan 16 19:09:22 UTC 2010
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:01:47PM -0500, b. f. wrote:
> >> Since some folks like the old behavior and some folks like the new
> >> behavior, what do you all think of a user-selectable make.conf option to
> >> choose where the check-conflicts target appears in the port build sequence?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Greg
> >>
>
> >I'd love that. The new behavior isn't a bad default, but it needs an
> >override.
>
> >Wait a minute; rewind. Isn't that what "make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS" does?
>
> I believe that he is talking about changing _when_ the check for
> conflicts is made; whereas DISABLE_CONFLICTS ignores the check,
> regardless of when it is made. A late check is preferable to using
> DISABLE_CONFLICTS, because with that knob you can shoot yourself in
> the foot by mistakenly installing one port on top of another.
Best:
check for conflicts early, error out early if there are conflicts so
one doesn't waste hours compiling something and checking/installing
dependencies and so on
Middling:
check for conflicts late
Worst:
don't check for conflicts at all
Yeah, sounds about right.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20100116/fc771f17/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list